You know I have a love-hate thing with Julian Assange. I admire him and I kind of despise him. I think he’s brave and a hypocrite. But here’s something I didn’t expect: Julian Assange doesn’t understand how movies and movie promotion work. He doesn’t understand that by inserting himself into the promotion of The Fifth Estate in an attempt to ridicule the film and discourage people not to see it, he’s only giving the film additional publicity and making more people interested in it. For such a brilliant man, this is a somewhat fatal flaw. It is a flaw that reflects his own (well-known) hubris. So, in an attempt to “shame” Benedict Cumberbatch and the people who made The Fifth Estate, Assange released an “open letter” on WikiLeaks yesterday. You can read the full thing here – it’s very long. Assange is incapable of pith. He is neither witty nor conversational. He’s a blowhard. Here’s an edited version:

Thank you for trying to contact me. It is the first approach by anyone from the Dreamworks production to me or WikiLeaks. My assistants communicated your request to me, and I have given it a lot of thought and examined your previous work, which I am fond of. I think I would enjoy meeting you.

The bond that develops between an actor and a living subject is significant. If the film reaches distribution we will forever be correlated in the public imagination. Our paths will be forever entwined. Each of us will be granted standing to comment on the other for many years to come and others will compare our characters and trajectories.

But I must speak directly…I believe you are a good person, but I do not believe that this film is a good film. I do not believe it is going to be positive for me or the people I care about. I believe that it is going to be overwhelmingly negative for me and the people I care about. It is based on a deceitful book by someone who has a vendetta against me and my organisation.

In other circumstances this vendetta may have gone away, but our conflict with the United States government and the establishment press has created a patronage and commissioning market – powerful, if unpopular – for works and comments that are harmful to us.

There are dozens of positive books about WikiLeaks, but Dreamworks decided to base its script only on the most toxic. So toxic is the first book selected by Dreamworks that it is distributed to US military bases as a mechanism to discourage military personnel from communicating with us. Its author is publicly known to be involved in the Dreamworks production in an ongoing capacity.

I know the film intends to depict me and my work in a negative light. I believe it will distort events and subtract from public understanding. It does not seek to simplify, clarify or distil the truth, but rather it seeks to bury it.

My organisation and I are the targets of political adversary from the United States government and its closest allies. The United States government has engaged almost every instrument of its justice and intelligence system to pursue—in its own words—a ‘whole of government’ investigation of ‘unprecedented scale and nature’ into WikiLeaks under draconian espionage laws. Our alleged sources are facing their entire lives in the US prison system. Two are already in it. Another one is detained in Sweden.

Feature films are the most powerful and insidious shapers of public perception, because they fly under the radar of conscious exclusion. This film is going to bury good people doing good work, at exactly the time that the state is coming down on their heads. It is going to smother the truthful version of events, at a time when the truth is most in demand.

The studio that is producing the film is not a vulnerable or weak party. Dreamworks’ free speech rights are not in jeopardy – ours are. Dreamworks is an extremely wealthy organisation, with ties to powerful interests in the US government.

I believe that you are a decent person, who would not naturally wish to harm good people in dire situations. You will be used, as a hired gun, to assume the appearance of the truth in order to assassinate it. To present me as someone morally compromised and to place me in a falsified history. To create a work, not of fiction, but of debased truth. Not because you want to, of course you don’t, but because, in the end, you are a jobbing actor who gets paid to follow the script, no matter how debauched.

I believe you are well intentioned but surely you can see why it is a bad idea for me to meet with you. By meeting with you, I would validate this wretched film, and endorse the talented, but debauched, performance that the script will force you to give. I cannot permit this film any claim to authenticity or truthfulness. In its current form it has neither, and doing so would only further aid the campaign against me. It is contrary to my interests, and to those of my organisation, and I thank you for your offer, and what I am sure is your genuine intent, but I must, with inexpressible regret, turn it down.

I’m guessing this is the letter that Benedict received just days before he began filming The Fifth Estate. Cumby has said in previous interviews that he asked for changes to be made to the script before Assange even wrote this letter, and that this letter didn’t really change the way he felt about Assange. I believe Benedict even wrote him back too, right? Anyway, I love that Assange has just gone full-on tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist. “Dreamworks is an extremely wealthy organisation, with ties to powerful interests in the US government.” Yes, Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen all donate heavily to the Democratic party. That is their “tie to the US government” – they donate money to the candidates they like. This is basically like the most annoying, windbaggy Dear John breakup letter ever. Assange is SO OVER IT, Benedict. Now I have an image of Assange listening to Adele’s “Someone Like You” on repeat while he stares at a photo of Cumbercurls.

Oh, and yes… about those Cumberbatch photos from Esquire… um… it’s okay if I moaned a little, right?

132 Responses to “Julian Assange wrote an epic breakup letter to Benedict Cumberbatch on Wikileaks”

Comments are Closed

Psych 101 hat on: I think the narcissist in him wants the publicity for the film, and so he’s indrectly trying to publicise it. He doesn’t want it to bomb as that could in his mind reflect on him but he wants people to know that if he comes across negatively that he isn’t in support of it.

And yes, I moaned several times when I saw those Esquire photos. (not loving the Beaver fur coat though….oh Benny and Tommy..stop it with the fur trims)

I thought the same thing as it’s way to close to the premiere’s in both the UK & the US for it to be a coincidence. If he really wanted a *real* protest, he could have achieved it much earlier than now. My guess is he was bummed the critics panned it at TIFF (which reinforces his concerns) but is probably grateful that BC took a holistic approach. And what better way to help the award voters remember that BC’s performance is outstanding? If BC can get a BAFTA *and* an Oscar nod (not to mention other countries’ best actor nod) — what better way to keep JA in the news?!???

And serious question, did anyone else think this letter to BC was not as well written as most people claim? Just curious as I wasn’t really impressed.

LadySlippers – I agree with you about the letter being poorly written. I agree with this whole thread, to be honest – It’s telling that Assange does these things when he does them, just before filming starts, just before press and premieres – he wants the big dramatic moment.

Umm..no. I think you are confusing Julian Asange with Kim Kardashian. He’s NOT some attentionstarved hollywood starlet desperate to get in the papers ffs.
He says this because he wants to make it known how he feels about the movie and he has millions of suporters all over the world eho will boycot the movie because of his word. Please get a clue about what you’re talking about.

I am going to just say it: Benedict Cumberbatch is an uninteresting actor (who needs further linguistic tuition on Australian vowel sounds) with fascinating nomenclature and is apparently famous for a television show which is essentially CSI Miami with a touch of English restraint bolstered by “literary connections”. He’s a slightly less insufferable Hiddleston – or whatever his name is, i’ve only read one interview where he waxed lyrical about Shakespeare and sounded just awful. Mr Cumberbatch should be so lucky Assange even attempted to persuade him to drop this godawful film. Oh, and he looks like an Otter.

I think Benedict is doing an Aussie accent of a man with a unique speech pattern (Assange’s speech has been described as slow and kind of flat, and that he himself may be slightly autistic) AND a speech impediment all at once, and many critics don’t realize that’s the oddity of what they’re hearing…not Benedict’s lack of grasping the accent. Also, don’t Australians have variations of accents the way native-born Americans do? Like we have a Boston accent, a New York accent, the midwestern accent, and the various southern accents?

I trust Benedict’s abilities as an actor and if people are saying his accent is “off” or not authentic then I question the critics’ understanding of what he was doing within his role.

@ Maureen. There’s really not a lot of regional variation in Australian accents. I’m an Aussie and honestly can’t pick whether someone is from Perth or Sydney (they’re 4000k/2500m apart). Linguists can probably pick it, but there’s nothing like the obvious accents you get in the US or UK.

There *is* a bit of a city/country accent. You can tell if someone grew up in the bush or in a big city.

The thing is, Assange definitely doesn’t have a normal Aussie accent. I think Cumby nails Assange-speek, but if you’ve never heard Assange talk, and are expecting an everyday Aussie accent, you’re going to think Cumby is doing a terrible job.

(You mentioned the weird speech patterns and speech impediment, but you missed the fact he’s spent a lot of time in Europe. It’s a weird blend. You hear a lot of Aussies who’ve picked up a slight English accent, so that sounds fairly “normal” but Assange spent a lot of time in various Euro countries. You don’t hear a lot of Aussie/Icelandic/Swedish blends, so it sounds odd.)

(And for those interested, I have sublimated my Hiddles crush and turned it into something more normal.. He provides me with a muse/inspiration for a pretentious knob/ romantic bastard character I am currently writing. So I may need to borrow TommyAnnE from time time for.. Uh.. Research.. Yeah.. Research)

I’m with you T.Fanty, screw Assange. We already now he’s in love with himself and now that he has found Cumby is his equal in neverending rambling, of course he has fallen for Cumby. It’s ok Julian – we love him too.

It’s grey & rainy here and I forgot to buy HobNobs, and h£ll, I don’t even own Royal Doulton Periwinkle cups, so my plan for a little Anglophilian evening went bollocks.

So it’s only fair I concentrate ONLY on these pictures. There’s lots to concentrate on!

I do hate Hollywood for their terribly cheesy, stereotypical, fictional-dramatizations of anything that could be remotely interesting. I have to side fully with Assange on this one and if I watch anything about him or his life, it will be a documentary, preferably produced outside the US, and not a Hollywood piece of $hit. No shade on Cumby or Assange at all, but yeah- what a shame to participate in the nonsense they cook up and what a shame how everything is so commercially intertwined when it comes to what is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the ‘free’.
His choice of the word toxic is spot on.

I think the cheesy Hollywood portrayals stem from the fact that most movie/TV execs think we Americans are too stupid be be given facts in which to form our own opinion (along with a good story because it can be done). Thus, cliched crap is served. Sad really.

The film is based upon two books: One written by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who was Assange’s number ’2′ man for years and worked very closely with him, and the other book was written by two reporters from “The Guardian,” with whom Assange has had a close working relationship for years (The Guardian … I don’t know about the reporters).

DDB was not Assange’s right hand man. He was just another volunteer. He seemed to think he was more important than he was, but Julian was working with dozens of other people while DBB was busying himself making Wikileaks T-shirts (and he even managed to screw that up).

When he was suspended by Assange, he destroyed Wikileaks drop-box, stole the un-published submissions and destroyed them. Assange publicly begged DDB to publish the stolen files himself or give them to a paper, he was unconcerned with Wikileaks losing the credit. DDB chose to destroy them because he didn’t want to look bad by publishing files he stole from his old workplace. He suggested that anyone who had sent the files in could simply send them again. Because of course the whistle blowers have just kept stolen data on their PC for two years. The man’s a waste of oxygen.

My thoughts as well. I am pretty well on the fence with Assange but what he writes in the letter makes sense to me. Both the sources that the film used for it’s focus were antagonistic to Assange and he is right that most people who see the film and Benny’s character interpretation will sub consciously or not come to see the two as one. And even more so with his fans, who in most cases will be unable to watch it impartially.
I also find the publishing of a letter which was sent to the actor privately to sell the film is just tacky as is using his childhood to justify the interpretation. It is one of the reasons I have lost respect for Benny despite admiring him as an actor.
Assange was right to distance himself from the production. You only had to read Cameron’s comments on the film to know that it will be twisted and used by politicians and those who are antagonistic towards his actions. They will praise Benny’s performance in the process because by doing so it implies that the character interpretation is correct and supports their overall criticism of Assanges actions.

Those pics from Esquire were fabulously delicious. I swear to god I was this close to licking my screen lol

As for the letter…I agree with Kaiser, he is giving the movie more hype and promotion by leaking this letter. But I think he should also release BC’s response…I would like to hear both the sides for a better understanding of what went down between the two.

Surprisingly this letter has been reported by every major newspaper/magazine website including TIME. My uncle who never heard about Cumby was having a discussion with my father about him and Assange. Look like its free publicity for darling Cumby *evil grin*

I don’t think anything “went down” between the two. Cumby has been open about writing to Assange getting shot down. If anything I could see Assange getting all worked up about it (obvs) and Cumby just shrugging and being like, “Okay, well, doing the movie anyway.”

Please, can everyone be careful interpreting quotes from the lawyer. You have to remember that he wasn’t defending Assange against the charges themselves … he was fighting the extradition.

The argument was: even IF we take the victim statement as the complete and utter truth, it isn’t enough to match the crime as stated on the arrest warrant, therefore Assange shouldn’t be extradited on that warrant.

It’s absolutely not the same as a lawyer saying “yeah my client did it”.

My understanding is that the charges relate to a specific Dutch law re the use of contraception and are not linked to an assault but more about possible coercion re the use of protection during intercourse. The ladies themselves have said they did not want to prosecute.

His lawyer’s never admitted any such thing. When he was fighting extradition he had to argue that the accusations weren’t a crime (which fyi, they aren’t, it’s being used as a test case in Sweden). He couldn’t argue the allegations weren’t true, which is what he claims, that isn’t how it works.

This letter and the Wikileaks reaction will stop me from seeing the film – at least from giving money to filmmakers or distributor. I have too much respect for their work to support something that they are so passionately against.

I think JA wants us to see the film. It actually pushes his company and him into the mainstream. JA is too smart of a man not to know how a commercially successful film can open doors. It keeps him & Wikileaks in the forefront of people’s consciousness.

@Break, who wrote: “This letter and the Wikileaks reaction will stop me from seeing the film – at least from giving money to filmmakers or distributor. I have too much respect for their work to support something that they are so passionately against.”

Have you considered at all the possibility there might be ‘another’ reason why they are so ‘passionately’ against the film? I’m just saying.

I don’t wholeheartedly buy into Assange’s argument, but he’s only presenting that element of the Propaganda Model which holds that the liberal press and other media (to whit, not so much Dreamworks as the media buzz around the film) are actually more “dangerous” (ie as disguised lackeys to corporate interests) than the openly conservative.

You can agree or disagree with him, but I thought it was a lucid explanation of his political position.

Was that an American or British use of the word ‘quite’ in your statement?

To me, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, I honestly do not think its as well written as people are saying. I also think his arguments, while valid, are rather weakly portrayed. I keep hearing JA’s a genius and just didn’t see much of it in the letter. That’s all.

I think he gave a clear explanation of the argument he was making – ie one based on the propaganda model that liberal media and arts are less liberal than they purport to be. In this case, that the film source is flawed/biased but the film will be reviewed by liberal media as balanced and their judgement will be taken as received wisdom by liberally-minded citizens.

I think this model has a point generally and I think Assange also has a point in this instance specifically, but I’m not with him or the propaganda model all the way. So you could say that he wasn’t persuasive enough because I haven’t changed my opinion after reading the letter.

The style: verbose. But I wasn’t really remarking on that.

Man, I am writing long and serious comments today. I must need ice cream or something!

But then, I am familiar with all the players and all the positions taken on the main and sub-issues surrounding Wikileaks, whistle blowers generally and most privacy issues.

But the media are concentrating on one book as the source. So most people won’t realise. Which is the point Assange is making. It’s not an unfair point, whatever one’s view of Wikileaks, Assange and all the rest of it.

I’m looking forward to seeing the film. I suspect I’ll like it. But that really isn’t germane to the point I was making. Neither is whether one should support Assange or not.

One of the books is written by a man, DDB, who volunteered for a relatively short time and tried to turn that into being a ‘co-founder’ even though Wikileaks was up and leaking long before DDB became involved. Julian crashed at his apartment for a few weeks when he was in Germany. The guy had a few connections within the CCC and Pirate Party, so was useful for a while. He clearly thought Julian was his BFF, Julian saw a guy with a spare bedroom in Germany. His book should be subtitled He’s Just Not That Into You.

The guy left Wikileaks during Collateral Damage because he was starting to lose his mind (this is made clear in his own book) and he wasn’t around for anything after that. He sabotaged Wikleaks drop-box and stole the as yet unpublished submissions, then later destroyed them. He’s also the guy who tried to start his own leaks site, which after 3 years is no closer to functioning. He’s on the record lying about major things. When he destroyed the submissions, he gave many interviews on the same day, and everyone got a different story. To some he claimed he never had them, to some he claimed he did it, to some he claimed he still has them, to some he claimed ignorance of the submissions all together. He’s not a reliable source at all, he’s actually pretty unhinged.

The other book is written by two men from The Guardian. Their worst claims about Julian have been denied by journalists from other papers, like Der Speigel. Oh, and they made a password to encrypted files one of their chapter titles, which DDB blathered about, leading to un-redacted files being released by Cryptome. Their defense was that they didn’t realize sensitive passwords shouldn’t be written down verbatim in books, and that it was all Assange’s fault for not making that clear to them. Assange and others also claim that the journalists at The Guardian ignored all computer security measures and thought they were a joke while they were working on the release. David Leigh has got himself in hot water many times attacking Assange with claims that can’t be backed up or that are clearly proven untrue. He has a personal vendetta against Assange, so again, not an impartial source.

The Most Dangerous Man in the World by Andrew Fowler is quite a good book, if you’re looking for a more balanced read.

Actually, the whole government/dreamworks assertion isn’t really tin-foil-hat stuff at all. I don’t know specifically about dreamworks, but Hollywood’s long standing relationship, particularly with the military, is well known, well documented and pretty out in the open.

@Gretchen — it’s not just Hollywood. I can remember reading something to my then husband from a Tom Clancy book. His jaw dropped because what I read was classified and the book was already in paperback…. Now that means someone had to give Tom Clancy that info…

As for Hollywood… They do get A LOT wrong so I’m a tad skeptical on Hollywood & the military are tight idea. I think it might be more on a case-by-case basis. And like JA, with all the negative scandals the military has faced, they could use some ‘free’ advertising. But only for certain people/studios…

But to be fair, it’s not just Hollywood. Films, plays, TV shows – they all reflect the political and cultural zeitgeist. Even Shakespeare productions reflect their time and place – the difference between the Olivier and the Branagh films of Henry V are often cited as an example of this.

I saw an advance screening of the film last night. It was ‘no’ Assange love-fest, and it didn’t exactly paint “The Guardian” in the best light either.

It was a hip, well-paced film that kept my attention. In my humble opinion, Assange is only proving what was painfully apparent in the film: he ‘is’ without a doubt a hardcore egomaniac (and, I seriously think, a borderline sociopath as well). He seems to have no ethical, moral, or social filter. He seems to be what the world most fears and loves: a charismatic personality with a warped view of ‘our’ place in ‘his’ world.

The world had one of those about 80 years ago. People both feared and loved him. He had staunch supporters and dedicated enemies. He needed ‘all’ of your attention and everyone else’s as well, and when he lost any bit of it he would ruin your name or erase you from the world.

The film is based upon two books: “Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website” by Daniel Domscheit-Berg (portrayed in the film by German actor Daniel Bruhl) and “WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy” by two ‘Guardian’ reporters–David Leigh and Luke Harding.

I did not use the ‘H’ word here at “Celebitchy,” nor will I. I did ‘not’ compare Assange to the ‘H’ word, I compared him an ‘egomaniac.’ There were more than one Charismatic male egomaniacs around about 80 years ago. All egomaniacs have the same traits … so take your pick.

And the film is based upon two books by people who know him. Perhaps there is another reason why he doesn’t want people to see the film.

Okay, Emma, to which 1930′s charismatic male egomaniac were you referring?

If it wasn’t the-H-guy (I’ll roll with that, though I don’t see the need for a euphemism), you shouldn’t have a problem telling me who you were talking about. I’d like to understand your comment. If I got the wrong guy, tell me the right one.

Edit: @ LadySlippers – no worries. I looked it up when if first started being quoted because I thought: “what kind of defence lawyer would say THAT?”. Once you learn the context it makes a lot more sense.

@Lucrezia, who wrote: “If it wasn’t the-H-guy (I’ll roll with that, though I don’t see the need for a euphemism), you shouldn’t have a problem telling me who you were talking about. I’d like to understand your comment. If I got the wrong guy, tell me the right one.”

See the film first, but then … and I repeat … pick your own egomaniac from that period, or any period, as they’re all the same.

“I did ‘not’ compare Assange to the ‘H’ word, I compared him an ‘egomaniac.’” – Emma – the JP Lover

You most certainly did! You are being disingenuous, at best, because you more than merely implied tarring Assange with the same ‘egomaniacal’ brush as Hitler.

Alright, Emma – the JP Lover, I have some time on my hands! I googled your every example tarring Assange with the same euphemistic ‘egomaniacal’ brush as Hitler. Here goes my breakdown of your remarks compared to those on record about Adolph H:

“he ‘is’ without a doubt a hardcore egomaniac (and, I seriously think, a borderline sociopath as well)” – google quote: A more accurate diagnosis and the diagnosis Hitler would probably receive if he were to seek psychiatric care is that of antisocial personality disorder. This is, of course, popularly known as being a sociopath.

“a charismatic personality” – google quote: … the recognition of Adolf Hitler as a charismatic “personality”; an apparently magnetic character instead of a malevolent, psychopathic void.

“with a warped view of ‘our’ place in ‘his’ world.” – google quote: To rationalize his warped Weltanschauung (“worldview”) Hitler cherry-picked from the writings of his philosophical heroes.

“The world had one of those about 80 years ago.” – google quote: Hitler came to power 80 years ago. I remember it like yesterday

“People both feared and loved him.” – google quote: Hitler also was both feared and loved by his people.

@Esmerelda, who wrote: “About JA and the movie… it could have been a great occasion to explain cryptography and its implications… and it has been turned in just another celebrity endorsed ‘conspiracy’.”

Actually, the film isn’t just another ‘celebrity endorsed’ conspiracy theory. It spent time covering Assange’s ‘shadow/mirror’ sites and how/why they were/are so well protected.

Anything more might be a spoiler (I saw the film last night in an advanced screening) so just suffice it to say, they did a good job explaining geeky tech stuff in a manner even ‘alien’ math students like me could understand.

@Emma: thanks for your reply.
If the tech part is well presented, I’ll probably go see the movie. IMHO, the interesting part in the wikileaks story is how they used a tech revolution (‘free’ cryptography) and applied it to a political / ideological end. If the movie was just a portrait of JA, as this buzz seemed to imply, it would have been a pity.

Frankly, I think everyone, Assange first and foremost, may be overestimating the importance and range of this film. I’m a big fan of Cumberbatch’s acting talent and I do love his looks (wouldn’t call me a Cumberbitch though), but from the first pics to the trailer to all this promotion around the film, I have no desire to see it. The subject bores the pants off me and I don’t see why a film about Assange needs to be made NOW, when there are so many loose ends concerning his life story and trajectory. He is indeed an interesting character and his life’s work is too, on many levels. But I just don’t get a film at this point in time. I think he gives the “power” of this film way too much credit (and by doing so, reveals just how self-absorbed he is). I’m just so over everything concerning The Fifth Estate.

That was my feeling as well. There needs to be a period of time to let the dust settle before you can make a film with any impartiality. Nobody really knows what the impact of the Wiki leaks is let alone enough about the man to make judgements about his character.
And what is really sad is that many of his fans will be more interested in how he looks rather than any ethical concerns,
I all the reviews I read coming out of Tiff boring and plodding was the overall tone. It may be that they do explain all the tech stuff skilfully but that does not make for interesting or inspired film making and neither does overdramatizing his flaws.

For me, an “impartial” film about this issue would likely be unsatisfying. Mostly, because impartiality is a nigh-on impossibility and there will always be hidden biases and assumptions and the audience may find it too difficult to untangle them because they are not open.

I think “truth” would be served better by multiple films, arguing for each side. We can then watch them all, assess the arguments and make up our own minds about the “truth”.

I’m with Katie. I’ll defend Assange against false propaganda, but I don’t characterize him as a hero. It’s complicated. I agree with the basic principles, but Wikileaks/Assange sometimes cross a line I’m uncomfortable with. (I think the same about Greenpeace: save the whales definitely, but boarding an Russian oil-rig is NOT a good idea.)

I think the problem is that the whole shebang (Assange/Wikileaks/rape-charges) isn’t equally polarising.

If 10% think he’s a guilty-as-sin traitor, only 1% think he’s a martyred hero. But if include all the people with a complicated view, then maybe 30% would be in the “I agree with elements, but on the whole I disapprove” camp, while the remaining 59% think “I disagree with elements, but on the whole I approve” camp.

So the majority is pro Assange/Wiki but most of them aren’t going to be as vehement as the anti’s. It makes the tone of the discussion a bit unbalanced.

Especially since it’s such a complicated topic with so many elements. Katie and I appear to be in the same camp (generally pro, but with some reservations), but there are probably specific aspects we’d disagree on.

Thats what I was gonna say. I dont watch TV, so I am not being spoon fed any assaults against him or his character, and I am totally astonished to see people calling him a ‘narcissist’ and talking like he is some sort of a sociopath.
Where did they get that??? Even more surprising is how they are interpreting his letter as a reason TO see the movie… like *smacks forehead*
I suppose thats a case of not being able to see the forest when standing amongst the trees…
I mean dont people KNOW that goverments make propaganda? That our entire environment shapes our opinions through selective information and slanted information? How do you think youre not above it— the US does it too… and yes, you may be victim to it… and that is exactly what Assange stands for- opening peoples’ eyes to this. Apparently not many people want to see what he was pointing out.

I think people are subconsciously aware but find it painful when a national identity is punctured by revelations of holes or iniquities in its myths. This is particularly strong in countries with very patriotic national narratives – eg the United States.

In a way, Assange is speaking to the personal pride of millions of people. It’s bound to hurt. And reactions are therefore going to be extreme.

And that’s BEFORE you even start to unravel an argument as to the balance between national security and government accountability.

Oh, after living outside the US for years I am much more wary of the government and the US media. So I am fully aware of the US’s spin on crap and totally agree with anyone who promtes transparency.

If it weren’t for the timing if the letter, I would have totally agreed with you. After the critics panned it post TIFF premiere this movie looked to sink quickly from our consciousness; it was only after JA/Wikileaks published JA’s letter to BC that everyone’s keyed back into the movie. That’s what’s catching all our attention. If JA (IMO) wanted to protest the movie, he should have published it in the midst if the TIFF reviews because a lot of critîcs didn’t like how one sided it is.

However, the letter does seem a tad narcissistic and this film does help keep Wikileaks and Julian on the forefront of our minds. That’s a good thing as support for him does seem to be evaporating.

I don’t have cable so I’m also not being spoon fed info. Before this movie I had next to no opinion & knew almost nothing about the situation. Granted, I will (unlike most people) seek out differing opinions in order to have a more balanced view.

To sum it up, it’s the timing of the letter that is most suspect NOT the contents. And a man against propaganda isn’t above using some himself.

Julian Assange is a twat of the highest order. He is unwilling to accept the negative ramifications Wikileaks has brought upon other people and the image of him dressed as a bogan, lip-synching to John Farnham’s ‘The Voice’ for the Wiki Leaks party’s election campaign will forever needlessly take up precious space in my brain that I could be using to enjoy these Batch photos -particularly the 1st one…He has nice hands.

Celebitchy, I think you underestimate the connection between Dreamworks and the US government. A lot of films are used as propaganda to distort the public’s image of certain events, which is what Assange is referring to.

Exactly. I’m based in Europe where attempts to hide the facts of the story were less successful. I think the news engineering around wikileaks has been much more managed by the US establishment. I wish people wouldn’t be such sheep and buy into the whole JA-is-a-narcissist crap.. I recommend reading Noam Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’. It’s an eye opener.